hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Lisa Minter wrote:
>> A federal jury in Manhattan returned guilty verdicts on all nine
>> counts, including securities fraud, conspiracy and lying to
>> regulators; a decision that could send Ebbers, 63, to prison for the
>> rest of his life. Sentencing was set for June 13.
> Does anybody out there think he -- or others convicted in stock fraud
> -- got a raw deal?
You're kidding right? This _is_ a rhetorical question isn't it?
-Dean
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think, technically, his prison
sentence could be for 85 years, if the court decided to give him
(what shall I say?) full value for his dollar. Obviously he would
not live long enough to fulfill his obligation. I think in actual
practice the court will probably give him 5-10 years, and considering
his health -- not that great -- that may be all he 'needs'. I know
that in this column yesterday, or day before, I said something about
him getting the essence of a life sentence, but as I think about it
now, I think almost all prison sentences are far, far too long. I
think an 'ideal' -- if that is a good term -- prison sentence would be
one or two years, max. After all, if a person does not know what
prison is about the day he enters one, I doubt he will know any more
about it ten or fifteen years later. And if people are _serious_ about
rehabilitation efforts, then the prisoner has to be discharged while
there is still some time to engage him in rehabilitation. The speed
with which our society and technical world is changing, a person
getting out of prison after ten or twenty years is never going to be
able to catch up. And if a person commits a crime which is *that*
atrocious as to deserve a fifty or seventy year prison sentence, my
suggestion would be to offer the person the option of a death penalty
instead; his choice. PAT]
Dean (cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com)